tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post4601965540288020269..comments2015-03-21T14:07:41.958-06:00Comments on Καθολικός διάκονος: In defense of marriageDeacon Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01385969740195992108noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-78642989182893828292007-03-12T13:06:00.000-06:002007-03-12T13:06:00.000-06:00On this we agree:&quot;I just think our societal v...On this we agree:<br><br><i>&quot;I just think our societal view on marriage is suicidal. We have been paying a high price for a long time already. Anything that further dilutes marriage and contributes to the confusion is to be eschewed.&quot;</i>Kansas Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17440862813109808755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-27535460309320538372007-03-12T10:39:00.000-06:002007-03-12T10:39:00.000-06:00A lot of my pastoral work is directed at preparing...A lot of my pastoral work is directed at preparing people for marriage and strengthing marriages. As a married member of the Catholic clergy, with four children, I am uniquely positioned to assist, as much through my challenges and failures as through my successes.<br><br>Like you, I am much more comfortable discussing what I am for than what I am opposed to. I certainly define myself by what I am for, not against. Nonetheless, from time-to-time it is important to pitch in two pennies. I just think our societal view on marriage is suicidal. We have been paying a high price for a long time already. Anything that further dilutes marriage and contributes to the confusion is to be eschewed. <br><br>As I stated before, whatever happens I remain hopeful. I admire the response of Cardinal O&#39;Malley in wake of the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling allowing for homosexual marriage in that state.Dcn Scott Dodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09994604395739905637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-87384457699582941272007-03-12T09:05:00.000-06:002007-03-12T09:05:00.000-06:00Thanks Scott for the response. Yes, I think that t...Thanks Scott for the response. Yes, I think that this issue is a civil rights one for our country.<br><br>Morally I am with you (I would not perform a gay marriage) because of my reading of the scriptures but civilly I think that these folks are US citizens that have &#39;civil&#39; rights and wonder (don&#39;t know for sure) if government denies those civil rights by denying them marriage.<br><br>I appreciate your advocacy of marriage and, really, wish that our conversation could focus more about the strengthening and reconciliation of marriages. My heart often breaks when couples come to me at the proverbial last hour trying to save their marriage and undo years of past harm.<br><br>Blessings to you, BobKansas Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17440862813109808755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-38529602097435807252007-03-11T22:14:00.000-06:002007-03-11T22:14:00.000-06:00&quot;It is why ministers say &quot;by the power i...<i>&quot;It is why ministers say &quot;by the power invested in me by the state of&quot; ... the government determines what is legal and what is not ... who can marry and who cannot.&quot;</i><br><br>First off as a minister who has presided at quite a few weddings in the United States, I have never once said &quot;by the power invested in me by the State of . . .&quot; The Rite of Marriage does not allow for such an instrusion by the state. All Catholic clergy say: &quot;You have declared your consent before the Church. May the Lord in his goodness strengthen your consent and fill you both with his blessings.<br><br>What God has joined, men must not divide.&quot;<br><br>In addition to meeting the canonical form required by the Catholic Church, it is a civilly legal marriage, as well. I sign the marriage license and mail it to the County Clerk within 72 hours of the wedding. For me, it is the Code of Canon Law that has the say as to who can and cannot get married. In many countries Christian couples are required to marry twice, once civilly and again in the Church. We may be moving toward a similar thing in this country. Even though I believe anything that such a change would further weaken marriage, the family and, hence society and would further divorce sex from procreation, it would not be the end-of-the world.<br><br>The question I am trying to address, however, is not whether, people of the same sex will ultimately be allowed to marry on whatever grounds, I am addressing what is moral and ethical. Your reasoning, which is not bad reasoning, at least in logically, demonstrates the pragmatic mindset of most in the U.S. I contrast pragmatic with moral. <br><br>Perhaps unintentionally you introduce civil rights into the question. Previously we only discussed human rights. There is an important distinction to be made between the two, which I addressed above.Dcn Scott Dodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09994604395739905637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-15552702395905196122007-03-11T17:29:00.000-06:002007-03-11T17:29:00.000-06:00Hi Scott,While I agree with you in spirit about ma...Hi Scott,<br><br>While I agree with you in spirit about marriage predating our legal system I also think that legality is actually what the gay marriage debate is all about. It is why ministers say &quot;by the power invested in me by the state of&quot; ... the government determines what is legal and what is not ... who can marry and who cannot.<br><br>So, while we may believe that marriage is covenential in nature, to the government it can only be viewed as a contract. This is why, I think, gay marriage will eventually win on a civil rights basis.Kansas Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17440862813109808755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-80324445835293101732007-03-11T14:12:00.000-06:002007-03-11T14:12:00.000-06:00I, too, very much appreciate the dialogue and both...I, too, very much appreciate the dialogue and both of your comments. I realize this is a delicate matter and I am the last one to judge anybody else. Please know that at no point was I angry or even frustrated. Like you, Julie, I felt it was time to step away. I don&#39;t see our spirit of dialogue to be damaged in the least.<br><br>Bob: If marriage is conceived of as merely a legal contract, which tends to be how it is increasingly viewed, then you are right in asking why not allow people of the same sex to marry. I would say, however, that viewing marriage as merely a contract is new to even our secular understanding of the institution, which pre-exists our polity. When it is viewed as only a contract, marriage is easily dissoluable and this is harmful. That is only one answer among many I can give to answer your question.Dcn Scott Dodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09994604395739905637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-15686208385740286672007-03-11T13:49:00.000-06:002007-03-11T13:49:00.000-06:00Scott, I actually really appreciate your fleshing ...Scott, I actually really appreciate your fleshing this out in more detail. Much more helpful to me. I will leave you in peace for now. But again, thanks. I look forward to reading the links you posted that express your more fully developed line of reasoning. I hope that the spirit of dialog between us is restored.julieunpluggedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00088119765077193302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8254272216866737058.post-63461170506506249922007-03-11T13:41:00.000-06:002007-03-11T13:41:00.000-06:00Hi Scott,I enjoyed reading the dialog yesterday at...Hi Scott,<br><br>I enjoyed reading the dialog yesterday at Julie&#39;s place and honestly thought that the question of how gay marriage hurts society was left largely unanswered.<br><br>From a secular legal perspective it seems that it is discriminatory to exclude gays from marrying ... but I am not sure.<br><br>Blessings, BobKansas Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17440862813109808755noreply@blogger.com